A 13-year-old living on the streets can do whatever he wants.  He can do drugs, steal, have sex, decide when to go to bed, sleep where he wants.  He has the best lifestyle imaginable for a 13-year-old.  Then again, what if his mighty kingdom isn’t as special as he tries to tell people.  A psychologist might say that the lack  of consistency is traumatic for a young person.  Who is right?  Well, that is a matter of opinion that is determined by who is telling the story and how.   A paper written by a psychologist might have supporting evidence that is meant to persuade the audience that the boy is not safe on his own, but it would not give an accurate portrayal of what the boy’s life is like.  Likewise, an interview with the boy on the street might give the audience an idea of what his life is like from day to day, but it would not give any idea at what the boy’s emotions are like.  The difference is that the control is lost when the audience is able to see the boy’s life.  When the audience can see boy the either through film or pictures, they are able to draw their own conclusions about his life.  When the boy’s life is described in a formal paper or story, the supporting evidence usually gives the audience no reason to suspect that the story is anything but the truth.  It may be an exaggerated truth because the author wants to prove a point, but the audience is not able to make a decision based on all of the facts.  A story can be written either for or against the boy’s lifestyle, but it is usually written with some sort of bias.  A picture of film can be used to shape the audiences viewpoint, but it doesn’t always change the audence’s viewpoint as it was originally intended.  The bottom line is that visual media gives the audience a better chance to shape their own viewpoints, but a written media significantly reduces that possibility.